Modern Liberalism =- Authoritarianism

20% of the country is, has been and always will be, far left. 20% is far right. The rest of us are in the middle. Between the fringes.

I'm just a normal guy who's tired of having to pick between Ann Coulter and Al Franken as my spokesperson.

PRider, you can keep pushing this left/right bull**** all you want, but I don't want any part of it. The sad thing, is that the country is full of jack-assess like you.

im moving to Canada.


you my dawg rider.
 
Werbung:
Fishing is a good place to be PaleRider - especially when the fall weather has been as pleasant has it has this past few weeks. I was at a herding trial. A humiliating and humbling experience I must admit. I'll be going to to another event tomorrow for 3 days so...I'll put off answering in depth.

Before I respond though - I really would like to know what the difference is between conservatism - as you define it - and libertarianism.
 
PRider, you can keep pushing this left/right bull**** all you want, but I don't want any part of it. The sad thing, is that the country is full of jack-assess like you.

im moving to Canada.


you my dawg rider.

If you don't want any part of it, why are you here?

And if the country is "full" of people like me, then your observation that most are in the middle is incorrect.
 
Secularism is a religion and no less than the supreme court has stated as much.

Secular Humanism was stated to be a religion. It's defined as: a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance focusing on the way human beings can lead good and happy lives.

Secularism: the assertion that certain practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious belief (like government) is not.
 
Sometimes I get my entertainment from watching people like yourself continue to be tools.


Ironic that the tool believes someone else to be the tool. You are here entirely for my gratification and entertainment. Your mental gyrations are a delight to me, I revel in them.

Continue.
 
Secular Humanism was stated to be a religion. It's defined as: a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance focusing on the way human beings can lead good and happy lives.

Secularism: the assertion that certain practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious belief (like government) is not.

Secularism and secular humanism are one in the same coyote. Secularism is no more than an abreviated way of saying secular humanism. Look at your two definitions, they are the same. Both suggest that religion should not exist in the public square.

I will get to the classical liberal / libertarian thing when I can. It is going to be lengthy and involved. It might deserve its own thread. I will decide when I am further into it.
 
Demonstrate that the majority believes that childcare should be paid for out of the public purse. And if you can do that, demonstrate that it should be paid for out of the public purse.
Well we voted in our congressmen, they speak for us, in accordance with our laws, that proves the "majority" as per what the country considers the majority's voice....Bush is one man, who speaks for no one but himself. This isn't a democracy this is a republic, the majority's voice is given to the selected representatives, and they have spoken.

I made my point. Do you have a rebuttal or not?
Your point isn't made at all, you don't make points by declaring that you "can" point out many cases, nor is a point made where both sides of a bilateral argument can have the same statement interchanged between them without losing any ground.


The law. And we aren't really discussing what is alright with you, this is about the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism.
what law? I still see preachers on the corners here every wednesday.


[quote[
Allowing gays to marry involves actually redefining a word and granting special rights to a small group of people based on nothing more than their sexual preference.
[/quote]
So you're saying that marriage isn't a "special" right that is given to a man and a woman. What kind of right is marriage? Is it something we're born with? Something granted by some mystical power? No the government grants it, and by doing so they cannot deny every citizen of this country the ability to exercise the right, sexual preference NOTwithstanding. You're under the false assumption that to allow homosexuals to marry is giving THEM a special right, when in reality it is allowing them to exercise the right we all have but they currently are denied.

I am the most consistent person you are ever likely to encounter. If you believe that I flip flop, then you have a reading comprehension problem. But feel free to bring some examples of flip flops on my part forward if you believe they are out there.

see below.


Clearly, this discussion is over your head. I have made the case that modern liberalism can't help but become authoritarian and have given example after example. And you come here with a dictionary definition and expect it to support your position?

So now bringing the definition of a word into play is illicit? please please kind sir, is this not exactly what you did a few lines above when discussing marriage? I quote 'Allowing gays to marry involves actually redefining a word ' So let's see. Since Liberalism itself is a word, with a definition, something you're obviously trying to redefine with your position on what a "modern liberal" is, is this not what you yourself are trying to do? Something which you stated as a point for NOT allowing marriage between homosexuals? I'm confused. But perhaps it's ok to redefine words when it suits your argument, but when it's a talking point against something, you state that redefining words is a no no?

Learn the difference between modern liberalism and classical liberalism. They are as different as night and day. You are a modern liberal. I am a classical liberal.

You are no sort of liberal. Period. The definition of "classical liberal" A 19 th -century political idea which championed individual rights, civil liberties, and private property., expresses concern for civil liberties, individual rights, something that would be supportive of homosexual marriage, something you obviously are not.

The constitution doesn't grant anyone the right to marry.

14th amendment,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


I do agree, the constitution does not grant the right of marriage, however, the state does. If one wishes to take the section about depriving liberty, and you refer to liberty as the formula "X is an agent, Y is an obstacle, and Z is an action or state, where X is free to go from Y to do or become Z." (Gerald MacCallum 1967) then the states are decidedly denying what is considered intrinsic between a man and woman wishing to be joined, a liberty if you will, from those based on a sexual preference choice. This is a direct violation of the constitution.

Of course they are. Quotas do exactly that. Modern liberalism does, in fact, force people to interact and you, yourself, have just suggested that anyone who does not capitulate should be dealt with harshly. You have just demonstrated the reality of the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism.

You're referring here to "affirmative action" that's not really a "liberal" ideal as per the definition, that itself in my opinion is a racially biased malfeasance that somehow gets flown under the leftwing banner, but itself is not any form of liberalism. If someone can be proven to deny employment based on a race, that should be dealt with severely, in context affirmative action itself is sidestep racism in that qualified individuals may lose out to lesser qualified applicants due to race quotas, which itself violates my premise.

Secularism is a religion and no less than the supreme court has stated as much.

I believe you're getting your words crossed, Humanism is a religion according to Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488). Humanism by virtue is secular, but secularism itself is not necessarily Humanist and thus you cannot state them to be the same. Secularism can be practiced by a devout religious person, as long as his office/standing does not abide his religious beliefs in its execution. Regardless, the situation involving Humanism as a religion is an odd one itself, as the courts recognize it as a religion for the Free Exercise Clause and at the same time do not recognize it as a religion for the Establishment Clause (think, if christians tried to get humanistic ideals out of schools...then where does that lead, it's a big mess) The courts recognized a person has the right in whatever form to believe in a religion or by definition mashing NOT believe in a religion AS a religion so as to maintain equal and abiding rights between those of pious nature and those who choose to live in logical morality sans religious overtones. See the problem you suffer from palerider is that you're confusing contexts, a secular government itself is not practicing the religion of secular humanism. A school teaching science (which tends to be secular) is not forcing humanism as a religion on its pupils. The context is key.
 
Well we voted in our congressmen, they speak for us, in accordance with our laws, that proves the "majority" as per what the country considers the majority's voice....Bush is one man, who speaks for no one but himself. This isn't a democracy this is a republic, the majority's voice is given to the selected representatives, and they have spoken.

The recent veto wasn't about childcare or medical care for children, it was about the democrat's attempt to call adults of up to 25 years old children and include them in the program. Are you one of those 20+ year old "children" and are just pissed because you aren't getting any free goodies?

Your point isn't made at all, you don't make points by declaring that you "can" point out many cases, nor is a point made where both sides of a bilateral argument can have the same statement interchanged between them without losing any ground.

Exactly why should any attempt be made to bring religious people into line if they are not violating any of your rights?

what law? I still see preachers on the corners here every wednesday.

Perhaps you should investigate why they are on the particular corner or place rather than another. Perhaps you shoud ask them why they are where they are instead of another location.

So you're saying that marriage isn't a "special" right that is given to a man and a woman. What kind of right is marriage? Is it something we're born with? Something granted by some mystical power? No the government grants it, and by doing so they cannot deny every citizen of this country the ability to exercise the right, sexual preference NOTwithstanding. You're under the false assumption that to allow homosexuals to marry is giving THEM a special right, when in reality it is allowing them to exercise the right we all have but they currently are denied.

Hell no marriage isn't a right and if you were capable of looking at an issue beyond the surface, you would see that. I know this may be asking a lot of you, but consider the anthropological origins of marriage and why it came about. Marriage came about because our young take years upon years to become mature enough to be reasonably expected to survive on their own as opposed to most animals whose young are on their own in less than a year.

Given such a situation, it became necessary, if any sort of organized society were going to exist, to devise a means by which the relationship between a man and a woman could reasonably be expected to last long enough to see children to maturity.

Over the course of centuries, societies, in the name of stability developed ceremonies and incentives to coax couples into this relationship and offered the support of the community and government to them. Not to offer some special right that others didn't have, but in an attempt to maintain families to stabilize society. Without family, a society will find itself with an overabundance of fatherless children and the evidence of the harm done by such a situation is incontrovertable.

Marriage, and the benefits associated with it is not a right, it is a bribe. A bribe made by society for its own benefit in an effort to create stable families which are the cornerstone, (scratch that), the entire foundation of a successful and lasting society. Start tinkering with that relationship and the consequences will be felt, and felt strongly, throughout the entire society. Take a look at the consequences to society of liberalizing the divorce laws some years ago.

Prior to the "easy" divorce, entering into a marriage was a serious decision and people didn't often enter into it lightly as one would live with the consequences for the rest of one's life and because one couldn't get out of a marriage easily, they tended to last for life. Of course, some people made bad decisions and lived unhappy lives as a result, but most worked out their differences and made a life for themselves. The result was a greater good for the society as a whole.

Now, marriage can be easily disolved and as a result, people enter into the arrangement lightly, have children, and then split up without a thought. The result is children who are dysfunctional who grow up to be dysfunctional adults who then, without serious contemplation, begin their own dysfunctional families. It doesn't take long for the society itself to begin to de stabilize and become dysfunctional itself.

So no. Marriage isn't a right, it is an arrangement that civilization invented to create the required stability for civilization itself and history has shown us beyond a doubt that tinkering with the institution for the benefit of a few greatly diminishes the greater good for the society. Any action that diminishes the importance of marriage does harm to society.

So now bringing the definition of a word into play is illicit? please please kind sir, is this not exactly what you did a few lines above when discussing marriage?

For the simple reason that a definition is meaningless if it doesn't describe the reality of the thing it is attempting to define. Bringing forward a definition of liberalism that says that it rejects authoritarianism when I have just made an ironclad case for the fact that liberalism, in fact, must become authoritarian to realize its goals is just silly. If you believe that liberalism doesn't necessarily become totalitarian, then you are going to have to de construct my argument with more than a definition that is clearly not accurate.

When I invoked the definition of marriage, that definition accurately described what marriage is and always has been in reality.

(continued)
 
(continuation)

You are no sort of liberal. Period. The definition of "classical liberal" A 19 th -century political idea which championed individual rights, civil liberties, and private property., expresses concern for civil liberties, individual rights, something that would be supportive of homosexual marriage, something you obviously are not. [/q2uote]

Clearly, this discussion is over your head. You obviously don't have an inkling of the differences between classical liberalism (the philosophy that was expressed so eloquently in the declaration of independence and made reality in the constitution) and modern liberalism (the philosophy that gave us the soviet union, nazis, fascists, pol pot, and communist china).

Again with a definition that you clearly don't even understand. That definition describes the line of thinking that created the constitution. Tell me, robeth, would you like to live under a strictly constitutional government? I would. I wouild dearly love it and my bet is that it would be hell on earth for you.

I do agree, the constitution does not grant the right of marriage, however, the state does. If one wishes to take the section about depriving liberty, and you refer to liberty as the formula "X is an agent, Y is an obstacle, and Z is an action or state, where X is free to go from Y to do or become Z." (Gerald MacCallum 1967) then the states are decidedly denying what is considered intrinsic between a man and woman wishing to be joined, a liberty if you will, from those based on a sexual preference choice. This is a direct violation of the constitution.

Go try to make that argument in a court of law. Your blatant hypocricy is, however, amusing. The irony drips from your attempt to use the 14th amendment to justify homosexual marriage while at the same time, you support abortion which is a genuine and flagarant violation of the 14th amendment.

You're referring here to "affirmative action" that's not really a "liberal" ideal as per the definition, that itself in my opinion is a racially biased malfeasance that somehow gets flown under the leftwing banner, but itself is not any form of liberalism. If someone can be proven to deny employment based on a race, that should be dealt with severely, in context affirmative action itself is sidestep racism in that qualified individuals may lose out to lesser qualified applicants due to race quotas, which itself violates my premise.

Well, it isn't a classical liberal ideal, but it is squarely among the ideals of modern liberalism. If you really are interested in being a part of this discussion and have any interest in either adding to it, or getting something from it, you really need to familiarize yourself with the difference between classical liberalism and modern (or 20th century) liberalism. They are two entirely different philosophies and if you genuinely are against authoritarianism, then you are the victim of a brilliant marketing scheme that began some 70 years ago.

Affirmative action defines the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism. Simply saying that one can't be denied a thing based on sex, or race, etc. isn't enough for modern liberals. Modern liberalism is based on equality, as opposed to freedom and as such, imposed quotas in an attempt to enforce equality. Since freedom and equality of outcome aren't compatible, the freedom to associate with whom one choses had to give way to enforced equality.

I believe you're getting your words crossed, Humanism is a religion according to Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488). Humanism by virtue is secular, but secularism itself is not necessarily Humanist and thus you cannot state them to be the same. Secularism can be practiced by a devout religious person, as long as his office/standing does not abide his religious beliefs in its execution. Regardless, the situation involving Humanism as a religion is an odd one itself, as the courts recognize it as a religion for the Free Exercise Clause and at the same time do not recognize it as a religion for the Establishment Clause (think, if christians tried to get humanistic ideals out of schools...then where does that lead, it's a big mess) The courts recognized a person has the right in whatever form to believe in a religion or by definition mashing NOT believe in a religion AS a religion so as to maintain equal and abiding rights between those of pious nature and those who choose to live in logical morality sans religious overtones. See the problem you suffer from palerider is that you're confusing contexts, a secular government itself is not practicing the religion of secular humanism. A school teaching science (which tends to be secular) is not forcing humanism as a religion on its pupils. The context is key.

Secularism is a religion. The fact that a religious person can be a secularist doesn't preclude secularism as a religion as people can have more than one religion. Especially if they aren't really aware that one is a religion. Secularism meets all of the requirements to be a religion and denying that it is as such doesn't change the fact of what it is.

A secular government must, by definition, attempt to eradicate the trancendent from the public sphere. In order to do so, it must favor humanisim over the spiritual and that, my friend, is by definition humanism.

I am not confusing contexts, I understand the subject intimately. You clearly do not which explains your eternal misunderstanding. Your understanding of this subject and, apparently, many others, is limited to dictionary definitions which is the shallowest, and least reliable, form of knowledge, especially when discussing philosophical concepts.

In order to understand a thing, especially when that thing is philosophical in nature, you must look into it rather than at it. From my conversations with you on this and other subjects, it is clear that you don't take the time to look into anything. Your responses are shallow and superficial and don't hint at any actual deep reflection. I would suggest taking some time to learn what it means to look deeply into a concept rather than simply refer to a dictionary as the basis for your knowledge.
 
Secularism and secular humanism are one in the same coyote. Secularism is no more than an abreviated way of saying secular humanism. Look at your two definitions, they are the same. Both suggest that religion should not exist in the public square.

I will get to the classical liberal / libertarian thing when I can. It is going to be lengthy and involved. It might deserve its own thread. I will decide when I am further into it.

No. They are not at all the same.

Many "secularists" also happen to be Christian, Jewish, Buddhist. They just don't happen to believe that any one religion belongs in public sphere - ie government.

Secular humanism is a very particular "religious" philosophy.
 
No. They are not at all the same.

Many "secularists" also happen to be Christian, Jewish, Buddhist. They just don't happen to believe that any one religion belongs in public sphere - ie government.

Secular humanism is a very particular "religious" philosophy.


I would argue that the "secularists" who also belong to other religions have simply been duped into supporting a second religion without actually knowing they have done so. I understand that you might be hesitant to admit as you seem to be one who didn't realize that it was, in fact, religion.
 
Werbung:
I would argue that the "secularists" who also belong to other religions have simply been duped into supporting a second religion without actually knowing they have done so. I understand that you might be hesitant to admit as you seem to be one who didn't realize that it was, in fact, religion.


No, I don't think I'm wrong here. Secular humanism is very specific: it believes that morals, ethics and justice comes from rationality and reason and mankind itself - not through a deity. It specifically rejects the supernatural. I can see though how it can be considered a religion if you broaden the meaning of religion to include belief systems that are more philosophically centered - such as this or even Taoism.

Secularism comes from secular. What is secular? It is the state of being separate from religion. It doesn't necessarily oppose religion - it doesn't necessarily deny a deity or a religion. Eating or hiking are secular. Saying a prayer or attending Sunday school are religious activities. Most corporations and governmental institutions are secular organizations. Churches and synagogues are religious organizations. Secularism is nothing more or less then keeping the two spheres seperate.

Secularism can take a lot of forms but in general it is based on freedom of religion and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. It's an ideology - but it is no more a religion then Libertarianism or Neo-Conservatism or Classical Liberalism is. Even the Supreme Court was very specific in it's rulings - it ruled on Secular Humanism - not secularism.

Religion is defined in Wikipedia (as good a source as any):

A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

Secular Humanism might fit - secularism does not.
 
Back
Top